•  
  •  
 

THREE WEEKS OF CROSSFIT® TRAINING DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO OVERTRAINING SYNDROME IN RECREATIONALLY TRAINED MALES: A PILOT STUDY

Abstract

Derek. A. Crawford1, Josh. Smeed1, and Michael. J. Carper2

1Applied Movement Science Laboratory, and 2Applied Physiology Laboratory. Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, KS, USA

Physical inactivity remains a significant public health concern. CrossFit® (CF) is currently one of the most popular health and fitness activities. However, CF faces strong opposition and criticism claiming it causes injury. PURPOSE: Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate if CF participation contributes to overtraining syndrome. A secondary purpose was to determine if there are differences between CF original methodologies and real-world practice. METHODS: Six recreationally trained males (height, 182.8 ± 8.6 cm; weight, 84.3 ± 12.4 kg, and age, 25.0 ± 5.4 years) were randomized into two groups, either theoretical (TH) or real-world (RW) prior to the intervention. Both groups completed pre-testing assessment of body composition, physiological, biochemical, psychological, and performance-based data. Both groups participated in CF training 5 days/week. However, the TH group completed training designed to follow original CF methodology while the RW group followed programming designed by a randomly selected CF affiliate. At the beginning and end of each week blood was collected for serum analyses and select joint range-of-motions (ROM) were measured. Additionally, prior to each training session, resting heart rate (RHR), blood pressure (BP), muscle soreness (DOMS), and select training variables were collected. Following the completion of each training session, HR and perceived exertion (RPE) were collected. RESULTS: There are no significant differences in physiological, biochemical, immunological, psychological, or performance outcome variables assessed in this study for both between groups and pre-post testing (all p > .05). However, there are differences in intervention programming between TR and RW groups. In practice, there were significantly less element priority sessions in practice compared to what is recommended (40% vs 0%; χ2=8.25; p=.016). Further, these element priority sessions had significantly lower associated training heart rates (127.4 vs 167.0, 172.4 bpm; F=8.63; p=.001) and ratings of perceived exertions (9.4 vs 14.8, 14.7; F=15.26; p=.000) than other session designs common in CF. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that short-term CF participation does not contribute to the development of overtraining syndrome in recreationally trained males. Questions still remain on the potential for where CF may have the greatest impact on health and fitness and its implementation in practice.

This project was funded through an Independent Faculty Research Award provided by the Council for Research and Discovery at Pittsburg State University.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS